Filed: May 07, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6315 CHEVY RAMAT SHIVAEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus E. M. CUBE, M.D., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-98-780-7) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 7, 2001 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chevy Ramat Shivaee,
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6315 CHEVY RAMAT SHIVAEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus E. M. CUBE, M.D., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-98-780-7) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 7, 2001 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chevy Ramat Shivaee, ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6315 CHEVY RAMAT SHIVAEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus E. M. CUBE, M.D., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-98-780-7) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 7, 2001 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Chevy Ramat Shivaee, Appellant Pro Se. George W. Wooten, Peter Duane Vieth, WOOTEN & HART, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Chevy Ramat Shivaee appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider a prior order deny- ing relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint. Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Shivaee v. Cube, No. CA-98-780-7 (W.D. Va. Feb. 21, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
